Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Bruce A. Willey
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 6
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Bruce A. Willey, an Iowa attorney and CPA, prepared a promissory note and facilitated a $100,000 loan from Henry and Amber Wieniewitz to Synergy: Projects, Inc., a company controlled by longtime client David Wild.
- Willey deposited Wieniewitz’s check into his firm trust account and immediately disbursed funds to Synergy; he continued to represent and bill Wild/Synergy while also dealing with Wieniewitz.
- Willey did not disclose his relationship with Wild/Synergy to Wieniewitz, did not obtain informed written consent to a joint representation, and did not advise independent counsel.
- Wieniewitz received none of the promised repayments (the note promised staged returns) and later retained other counsel and filed a complaint with the disciplinary board.
- The Board charged violations of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct (conflicts/informed consent, use of client information, duties to former clients). The Grievance Commission found violations of 32:1.7(a)(2), 32:1.7(b)(4), and 32:1.8(b) and recommended a 30‑day suspension.
- The Iowa Supreme Court, after de novo review, held Willey violated rules 32:1.7(a)(2) and 32:1.7(b)(4) and imposed a 60‑day suspension (declining to decide 1.8(b) and finding no violation of 1.9(c)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Board) | Defendant's Argument (Willey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willey’s concurrent representation created a material limitation under Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.7(a)(2) | Representation of lender (Wieniewitz) was materially limited by Willey’s duties to longtime client Wild/Synergy; interests were adverse and Willey could not fully advance Wieniewitz’s interests | Willey said he acted only as intermediary and believed he was not representing adverse interests; no personal financial interest in Synergy | Court: Violation proved — positions were adverse from the outset and Willey failed to adequately pursue Wieniewitz’s interests (violation of 32:1.7(a)(2)). |
| Whether Willey obtained informed consent confirmed in writing per 32:1.7(b)(4) | No written informed consent or full disclosure was provided to Wieniewitz; consent cannot be inferred | Willey argued he offered opportunities (e.g., to meet Wild) and thought he acted as intermediary | Court: Violation proved — Willey failed to obtain informed, written consent and did not advise independent counsel (violation of 32:1.7(b)(4)). |
| Whether Willey used client information to the disadvantage of a client (32:1.8(b)) | Board alleged misuse of client information to Wieniewitz’s detriment | Willey disputed application of rule in these facts | Court: Declined to decide — not necessary to sanction determination. |
| Whether rule 32:1.9(c) (duties to former clients) was violated | Board alleged improper use/revelation of former-client information | Willey continued representing Wild/Synergy; not a former-client situation | Court: Not proven — insufficient basis to treat Wild/Synergy as former clients at relevant times (no 1.9(c) violation). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoller v. Iowa Supreme Court Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 879 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review and burden in disciplinary proceedings)
- Qualley v. Iowa Supreme Court Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 828 N.W.2d 282 (Iowa 2013) (60‑day suspension for conflict-related business transaction and failure to obtain informed consent)
- Marks v. Iowa Supreme Court Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 814 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2012) (public reprimand where no client harm found despite conflict)
- Wagner v. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 599 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999) (suspension for entering business transaction with client without disclosure)
- Wright v. Iowa Supreme Court Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 840 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 2013) (twelve‑month suspension for convincing clients to loan money in a fraudulent scheme)